offer a better explanation for the preference of the attractive people or objects than what evolutionary scientists usually suggest?

Quote:Maestripieri et al. argue that attractive people receive higher financial remuneration because they are preferred as sexual partners. Although we agree that the available evidence shows that attractive people make more money than unattractive people, we
suggest that differences between attractive and unattractive
people do not necessarily mean that there are biases in favor of
attractive people (as opposed to against unattractive people) and
that there are explanations for attractiveness-related bias other
than those examined by Maestripieri et al.
First, most of the research cited in the review defines attractiveness as a dichotomous variable, using only high and low levels of
attractiveness. Therefore, the review cannot determine whether
the effects are driven by a positive, beauty-is-good response, as
the authors argue, or by a negative, ugly-is-bad response. Uglyis-bad bias has been found in other research (e.g., Griffin &
Langlois 2006; Zebrowitz & Rhodes 2004). Only research that
includes a control or baseline group of medium attractive
people can distinguish between these two alternatives.
Second, even young infants seem to prefer attractive faces
(Langlois et al. 1987), and adult heterosexuals choose attractive
same-sex partners as friends (Langlois et al. 2000). Research on
ugly-is-bad bias, infant research, and research on same-sex preferences for attractive others are not consistent with most versions of
mating strategy.
As to explanatory mechanism, we propose that a domain
general information processing system, cognitive averaging,
results in preferences for attractive faces. In the initial study of
cognitive averaging theory, Langlois and Roggman (1990) mathematically averaged 32 individual female faces together to create a
female face morph/blend and 32 individual male faces to create a
male face morph/blend. The morphed faces increased in judged
attractiveness as more faces were added. Even when created
with independent sets of 32 individual faces, the morphs look
quite similar to one another, suggesting that a 32-face morph is
a prototype of an adult face. Both averaged and attractive faces
may be perceived as prototypes and, thus, seem more familiar
to the viewer, even if the face is novel (Langlois et al. 1994).
Faces that represent the mathematical average or central tendency of a population (e.g., male or female) also seem more
typical and to be “better examples” of a face and therefore are preferred. In addition, faces whose structure approximates the mathematical average facial configuration of a population are more
fluently processed than faces distant from the central tendency.
Fluent processing produces positive affect, which could explain
why attractive people are perceived more positively and hold
better jobs with higher salaries. Humans automatically create prototypes of faces, and even infants can abstract prototypes from
individual exemplars (Rubenstein et al. 1999; Strauss 1979).
Multiple studies with adults have provided evidence that high
attractive, prototypical faces are more fluently processed than
low attractive, nonprototypical faces. Averaged and high attractive faces rated low in distinctiveness (a subjective measure of
typicality) are categorized faster than low attractive, high distinctive faces in a species categorization task (Trujillo et al. 2014).
Attractiveness facilitates the speed and accuracy of gender-based
face classification (Hoss et al. 2005). Moreover, prototypicality predicts perceptual fluency and increased liking for non-face stimuli
as well. Dot patterns and geometric shapes are judged to be
more attractive and are more rapidly categorized when they are
close to the prototype (Posner & Keele 1968; Winkielman et al.
2006). In addition, perceiving and processing prototypical faces
and dot patterns requires fewer neural resources comparedwith
perceiving nonprototypical stimuli (Leopold et al. 2006; Loffler
et al. 2005; P. J. Reber et al. 1998; Trujillo et al. 2014); such a
reduction in neural resource use is a hallmark of perceptual
fluency.
Importantly, the fluent processing accorded by prototypicality
leads to more favorable judgments of perceived stimuli (Winkielman et al. 2006) and also influences affective states. R. Reber et al.
(1998) argue that fluency is in itself pleasant. Studies that have
experimentally manipulated fluency (e.g., Monahan et al. 2000;
Zajonc 2001) have found that increased levels of fluency
augment overall mood and increase generalized positive affect.
Beyond faces and dot patterns, participants show preferences
for prototypicality in many other types of stimuli, including
color patches (Martindale & Moore 1988), music (Repp 1997),
cubist paintings (Hekkert & Van Wieringen 1990), and voices
(Bruckert et al. 2010), likely because of the ease in processing
stimuli closest to the prototype. The wide variety of stimuli that
conform to this prototypicality or averaging effect suggest that
an evolved domain general mechanism such as cognitive averaging
is a more likely explanation for attractiveness preferences than a
domain-specific mechanism such as mate selection.

But why do many people prefer shitty music, ugly art or non-harmonious architecture then?

(08-03-2017, 07:48 AM)JustTheWayYouAre Wrote: offer a better explanation for the preference of the attractive people or objects than what evolutionary scientists usually suggest?

Quote:Maestripieri et al. argue that attractive people receive higher financial remuneration because they are preferred as sexual partners. Although we agree that the available evidence shows that attractive people make more money than unattractive people, we
suggest that differences between attractive and unattractive
people do not necessarily mean that there are biases in favor of
attractive people (as opposed to against unattractive people) and
that there are explanations for attractiveness-related bias other
than those examined by Maestripieri et al.
First, most of the research cited in the review defines attractiveness as a dichotomous variable, using only high and low levels of
attractiveness. Therefore, the review cannot determine whether
the effects are driven by a positive, beauty-is-good response, as
the authors argue, or by a negative, ugly-is-bad response. Uglyis-bad bias has been found in other research (e.g., Griffin &
Langlois 2006; Zebrowitz & Rhodes 2004). Only research that
includes a control or baseline group of medium attractive
people can distinguish between these two alternatives.
Second, even young infants seem to prefer attractive faces
(Langlois et al. 1987), and adult heterosexuals choose attractive
same-sex partners as friends (Langlois et al. 2000). Research on
ugly-is-bad bias, infant research, and research on same-sex preferences for attractive others are not consistent with most versions of
mating strategy.
As to explanatory mechanism, we propose that a domain
general information processing system, cognitive averaging,
results in preferences for attractive faces. In the initial study of
cognitive averaging theory, Langlois and Roggman (1990) mathematically averaged 32 individual female faces together to create a
female face morph/blend and 32 individual male faces to create a
male face morph/blend. The morphed faces increased in judged
attractiveness as more faces were added. Even when created
with independent sets of 32 individual faces, the morphs look
quite similar to one another, suggesting that a 32-face morph is
a prototype of an adult face. Both averaged and attractive faces
may be perceived as prototypes and, thus, seem more familiar
to the viewer, even if the face is novel (Langlois et al. 1994).
Faces that represent the mathematical average or central tendency of a population (e.g., male or female) also seem more
typical and to be “better examples” of a face and therefore are preferred. In addition, faces whose structure approximates the mathematical average facial configuration of a population are more
fluently processed than faces distant from the central tendency.
Fluent processing produces positive affect, which could explain
why attractive people are perceived more positively and hold
better jobs with higher salaries. Humans automatically create prototypes of faces, and even infants can abstract prototypes from
individual exemplars (Rubenstein et al. 1999; Strauss 1979).
Multiple studies with adults have provided evidence that high
attractive, prototypical faces are more fluently processed than
low attractive, nonprototypical faces. Averaged and high attractive faces rated low in distinctiveness (a subjective measure of
typicality) are categorized faster than low attractive, high distinctive faces in a species categorization task (Trujillo et al. 2014).
Attractiveness facilitates the speed and accuracy of gender-based
face classification (Hoss et al. 2005). Moreover, prototypicality predicts perceptual fluency and increased liking for non-face stimuli
as well. Dot patterns and geometric shapes are judged to be
more attractive and are more rapidly categorized when they are
close to the prototype (Posner & Keele 1968; Winkielman et al.
2006). In addition, perceiving and processing prototypical faces
and dot patterns requires fewer neural resources comparedwith
perceiving nonprototypical stimuli (Leopold et al. 2006; Loffler
et al. 2005; P. J. Reber et al. 1998; Trujillo et al. 2014); such a
reduction in neural resource use is a hallmark of perceptual
fluency.
Importantly, the fluent processing accorded by prototypicality
leads to more favorable judgments of perceived stimuli (Winkielman et al. 2006) and also influences affective states. R. Reber et al.
(1998) argue that fluency is in itself pleasant. Studies that have
experimentally manipulated fluency (e.g., Monahan et al. 2000;
Zajonc 2001) have found that increased levels of fluency
augment overall mood and increase generalized positive affect.
Beyond faces and dot patterns, participants show preferences
for prototypicality in many other types of stimuli, including
color patches (Martindale & Moore 1988), music (Repp 1997),
cubist paintings (Hekkert & Van Wieringen 1990), and voices
(Bruckert et al. 2010), likely because of the ease in processing
stimuli closest to the prototype. The wide variety of stimuli that
conform to this prototypicality or averaging effect suggest that
an evolved domain general mechanism such as cognitive averaging
is a more likely explanation for attractiveness preferences than a
domain-specific mechanism such as mate selection.

But why do many people prefer shitty music, ugly art or non-harmonious architecture then?

Maybe theyre indoctrinated into it by the media. The media knows our moneky side NEEDS to conform to the tribe or we'll die.